I am not say what I like or what I prefer. I only ask you to ask yourself which is true Aikido? The modified version that omitted Atemi or the original Aikido which uses Atemi extensively to kill. Which is true? Karate we practise nowadays is not true in comparison to what the people in Okinawa practised and used for self-defense. Is the modifed version of Karate we practised today true? I think not, for true karate realizes the value of both Atemi and Kansetsu Waza. The same is for Aikido, is the Aikido we see nowadays the same thing that the creators practised or is it a modified version? O'SENSI (IF YOU CHECK THE SITE OR DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH) MADE IT CLEAR THAT ATEMI IS THE HEART OF AIKIDO. Atemi Waza, like Kansetsu Waza in Karate, was omitted to make the art less brutal and therefore qualify as safe to be practised in Japan after the ban. Same as Ju Jitsu, the Judo/Ju Jitsu we see today is not the original Ju Jitsu it was modified so that it can be legalised.

Remember these arts had horrific reputations for being brutal (all martial arts). The idea of developing discipline through excersize (training), a common philosophy of sports in general, was a way of giving the arts a good reputation so that they could be introduced sucessfully in the Japanese society and the world.

---------------------------------------

Simularly

Western boxing is a brutal art. In the past before it was modified and shown on TV in a ring, it was rough and tumble, people died from the blows. If the gloves were omitted in the boxing ring, boxing would be veiwed differently today. Is the boxing we see today true boxing or is it an art modified to look less brutal to the audience. WBF was very careful in the way boxing was introduced to society, were they not? Same concept.---------------------------------------

I am not talking about the Aikido that many or all of you practise, I am talking about true Aikido. Is true Aikido soft?

my teacher practices aikido and aikijujutsu, and he says they are WORLDS apart, not only in that in aikido(modern) the strikes are used for distractions which lead to throws or locks. and in aikijujutsu you hit them to hurt them pure and simple...and they still lead into locks and throws.also the throws and locks themselves are quite different, aikijujutsu is just brutal sometimes, teaching practitioners how to break limbs and strike the opponent mid technique...i.e...while he is still airborn. what makes them both aiki is the blending with your opponent.also as was stated the intention of the arts are a big difference....aikijujutsu is brutal, aikido is gentle...seeking not to injure anyone or anything. just my two cents

Present day Aikido is a modified version of the original or true Aikido where Atemi Waza was omitted.

Aikido has been established since 1938 and Ueshiba died in 1969. So the art has been unsupervised by the founder for about 30 years. Do you really think the original art has changed that dramatically in such a short period of time?

Does anyone here have any knowledge of the ban in Japan and the history and philosophy behind the Japanese arts?

Are you referring to the ban in Japan after WWII? Japanese martial arts, unlike Okinawan Te, has flourished since feudal times. It only got interrupted, for a short time, after Japan was defeated in the last World War.

Present day Aikido is soft. True Aikido that uses Atemi Waza as the heart of the art is hard.

How do you know this? You do not even practice Aikido! From your prior posts you say that your school just dabbles in it. So you have the all knowing martial arts wisdom from dabbling in the art to make such a statement?! The whole essence of Aikido is to end the confrontation without causing serious harm to the aggressor. If atemi waza (vital point striking)is used it could easily cause serious bodily harm. You would probably then argue that Kansetsu Waza is just as devestating. Yes and No. Yes you could dislocate or break an arm but that is less detrimental than collapsing the laranx or bursting the corotid artory.

QUOTE FROM SITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shotokan you seem to find these quotes from the internet and defend them to the bitter end. Even when a veteran of the martial arts (Senseilou), who has extensive training in the art of Aikido, lends his knowledge you immediately denounce him. I could quote sites, more books from notable martial arts historians, articles from established traditional martials artists about Aikido but why bother cause it seems that your mind is already made up, your cup is full and you refuse to empty it just a little. Now mind you I do agree from where you are comming from. To apply locking and restraining techniques one needs atemi waza in their arsenal. But I disagree that True Aikido (as you term it) had this element as part of its curriculum.

Anyway I feel this discussion of Aikido between 2 Karatekas will lead nowhere since neither of us train in this martial art. I suggest we let Aikidokas bombard this topic for a while before we disagree again.

What all of you are missing is this- Osensei changed the art as he went along.Early students of Ueshiba learned atemi, as Ueshiba got older he modified aikido more and removed atemi because he did not feel it fit in with the spiritual philosophy of his.There is more than one style of aikido-hombu aikido(also known as the founder's aikido)has no atemi-this is what Ueshiba taught before his death.Other styles of aikido run the gamut,some are just a hair away from aiki-jutsu.

True Raul I do not train in Aikido, but if someone trained in Aikido that doesn't make them knowledgable about the history or the art does it? Training is physically activity. I am talking about knowing, a different verb, the history and philosophy behind the Japanese arts (not Aikido in particual). All arts from Japan underwent change to reduce it's effectiveness so that it could have be legalized. We know O'Sensi changed the art as he went along, but why did he change it? My argument is based on the assumption that like all Japanese arts, Aikido underwent change to make in more sucessful in introducing it to modern Japanese society. The Martial Arts we practise today is not the arts our ancestors practised, these arts had to lose some effectiveness in order to find a way around the ban. To say O'Sensi changed the art because he thought it would make it more effective or true, would contradict with his statement that Atemi is the heart of Aikido. If O'Sensi made this statement, why did he change the art as he went along? Are you assuming that the suddenly changed his mind?

-Shotokan

P.S

My argument doesn't come from any knowledge of Aikido techniques, it comes from my knowing of history and philosophy.

I do not specialize in Aikidos' history and philosophy, but I know what happened in Japan. From my point of veiw is you are ever to practise a true art you have to revisit the past and see what factors contributed to what it is today. I didn't get this point from a website, it is my own point, I just merely used the website as a suppliment to my argument.

True Raul I do not train in Aikido, but if someone trained in Aikido that doesn't make them knowledgable about the history or the art does it?

Any serious martial artist will do extensive research on their style to become familiar with the art's history, founder, philosophy, unique techniques... etc. If I were to ask you about some Shotokan masters I bet you could tell me a few stories about Funakoshi or Anko Itsou.

I am talking about knowing, a different verb, the history and philosophy behind the Japanese arts (but not Aikido in particual).

But this whole thread you started is about Aikido and whether atemi waza was originally part of the curriculum!

To say O'Sensi changed the art to because he think it would make it more effective or true, would contradict with his statement that Atemi is the heart of Aikido.

You are still hanging on to a statement made on a website. How do you know this person is credible? Have you interviewed him? Have you spoken to his instructors and validated this statement? Apparently Senseilou has trained with this man and says his credibility is garbage.

My argument doesn't come from any knowledge of Aikido techniques, it comes from my knowing of history and philosophy.

Apparently so far you have demonstrated that your knowledge has come from websites. You have never backed up your knowlege with references to books, personal experiences with Master Ueshiba, or interviews with his sons or senior disciples.

I do not specialize in Aikidos' history and philosophy, but I know what happened in Japan. My point of veiw is you are ever to practise a true art you have to revisit the past and see what factors contributed to what it is today. I didn't get this point from a website, it is my own point, I just merely used the website as a suppliment to my argument.

To accept the changes made to the arts without understanding why they were made will only hammer your understanding of the truth that the art holds.

Here the factor of sporst gear changed the art of sports karate. Not to say that trapping was eliminated by a master for the good of the art, but there were cases where there was no choice to make changes. Sporting gears made it difficult to do trapping. As a result, present day Karate has moved farther from the truth.

In a simular way the arts of the past were changed because the masters had no choice but to obey the ban place by the Japanese government.

With karate the same is true, however the masters were able to encode outlawed knowledge in the Katas.

-Shotokan

This is not to say that you veiw is wrong and my veiw is right, but our philosophies are different.

The Aikido community already recognizes that there are different "styles" of Aikido which were taught by different deshi of O'Sensei. It is very common for the styles to be classified as pre-war and post-war, and yes, one of the characteristic differences is the emphasis on atemi.

Throughout his life Ueshiba changed his martial practices (this happens with all of us). He learned new arts and combined them to ultimately "create" his own art - Aikido. If you think his learning and evolving stopped at that point, you are welcome to your opinion.

Did the occupation after WWII affect martial arts, of course it did. Were there other forces throughout history that influenced martial arts and forced them either underground or to disguise technique, of course.

How do you think Capoera evolved?

I'm sure you know the origin of the sai, the kama and nunchucku. They were all farming implements used by farmers who weren't allowed to have "weapons".

Well Chris it's good that you know that, but that wasn't my point. I know you people know about Aikido.

I am sorry maybe I should have explained my philosophy first when I started this post.

My point is this, everytime a martial art changes (not in a positive way to make it effective) it decreases it's combatant value. Aikido has under gone many negative changes (changes that took away from it's effectiveness). If we can reconstruct all of the negative changes we can move closer to the truth that the art holds.

As my friends did at the Shotkan Karate-Jitsu Academy. True Karate envolves locks, throws, pressure points, trapping etc...not that Karate we see nowadays. If you want to master an art you have to reconstruct what has been deconstructed from it. <<My philosophy feel free to agree to disagree. If you do not agree with this you are wasting your time reading my post.

To move closer to the truth we have to undo all of the negative changes that our arts have been subjected to.

I am not against post war Aikido, as long as the principles remain the same it is Aikido, what I am interested is the reconstruction of the truth (by the truth I mean move closer to a version of the art where all of the negative changes have been undone). <<It doesn't matter which version you choose be it different in terms of style, post war or pre-war, as long as the fundamental principles that define that art are present.

I am making a general statement about all martial arts especially the Japanese arts. I did not, I repeat I did not get this idea from a website, it is my own philosophy, I only used websites that partially supported my veiw to compliment my argument and add to it's effectivenss. <<Right Raul? It's easier to use a website that you can visit than a book that you have to buy. You wouldn't find a book/website that totally supports may veiw, it is soley my own.